Redstate

I don't know that there isn't some potential risk involved but the arguments are mostly specious. We've been told 'the ports are being sold' which is patent nonsense. We've heard the usual off the wall nonsense about 'only 3 percent of containers are inspected' which as a standalone fact is true but totally out of context of the actual process of cargo clearance.

The proposed sale is of a contract for management services at these ports. No one is buying the Port of New York or the Port of Miami. There are dozens of actors involved in providing various services at these ports. P&O the current contract holder is not responsible for port security, that rests with the Coast Guard, DHS and the local port authority.

The Congress is in high dudgeon again because the administration is performing it's administrative functions without getting the approval of Congress. If everything done by the administrative functions of the federal government required positive consultation with Congress nothing would ever get done (not necessarily a bad thing :-) If Congress wants an interactive role in every such decision then they have a remedy --- change the law. We have three branches of government for a reason; it is the the executive's job to do the day to day business of the country, not the Congress.

And given that everyone in the Capitol building is an expert on everything this approval cycle would come to a conclusion about the time the sun burns out. I suppose a simple question for Rep. Blackburn would be 'what makes you think that the Congress is uniquely qualified to intervene in this decision?'

If there is any way UAE citizens or royal family or any person from the Middle East can determine who works at the actual ports in the US, if they would have that much influence, I would oppose it. I am sure that is the case, so I wouldn't support it. Corruption can get to any level, and we have seen that high gov't officials and business officials in Middle Eastern countries are sympathetic to terrorists. And with all due respect, I don't trust our gov't to scrutinize the UAE's security for U.S. ports.

I remember during the Tora Bora battle I was thinking "I am sure we have aircraft, satelites, Predator drones, etc. watching every possible escape route during the entire battle(even the cease fire)". I was wrong. Evidently we were relying on Pakistan. We have done the same thing in Iraq (relied too much on Iraqi officials) so I do not trust our gov't to let another gov't handle a situation that has to do U.S. national security.

exactly what "tough scrutiny" entails, or do you have to be a tough scrutiny expert to nose around and find out.  Who will this company hire, what are their screening processes and how are they adminstered?  If one of the basic functions of Congress is to investigate and inquire I could think of a lot worse things for them to practice on.

Even if security is handled by other entities, the company managing the port is aware of procedures in order to comply. Can anyone reasonably guarantee that no one in the managing corporation from the UAE will be sympathetic to the terrorists and disclose vital information?

Why should we take the risk?

Could any domestic company make that guarantee?

Don't paint yourself into a corner.

taking this function. Are we that expensive?

Given the recent events in Nigeria and its effects on oil market speculation, coinciding with a presidential three-country tour ostensibly designed to drive home the SOTU energy message....I just don't get that Secretary Chertoff would choose this time to unveil what is certain to be a flying-wedge issue in Congress leading up to the mid-terms when gas prices are certain to rise.

There must be something else going on here.

adjusts tinfoil hat

This is a great issue to demagogues. The Arabs are coming!

What's particularly disconcerting is that the good congresslady would assume that such boob bait for the bubbas would play well here.

that the vast majority of the work will be done by US citizens/residents this is a good question. The current contract holder P&O hasn't imported an army of Brits or something to do the work, they hire locals. As a matter of fact that's one of the points that has been made about the purchase, the people doing the work will be the same, just the name on the contract changes.

So why is there no US management company stepping into the breech? If Congress wants to investigate something maybe they should investigate what is it that is keeping an American company from doing this work. The other thing they could investigate is what the h*ll happened to the US merchant marine; I forget the number of US flagged ships in commerce but it's pitifully small. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is US merchant marine labor regulations.

Congressman Blackburn if you want to have investigations investigate those two questions; leave the administrative functions to the administrative branch.

but I am also a pragmatist.  This makes no sense at all.  This is just fodder for the left.

It is unbelievably tone-deaf politically.  Putting aside the merits of the deal, it is an opening for the Left/Dems on national security issues.  They can run ads that implicity play to fears (which lets face it, are justified) about Arab terrorists and will not be excoriated for it by the media, or by the professional Arab ethnic-grievance groups in the way that Republicans would.  

And this is a big concern, IMHO.

It is a legimate and time honored, and sometimes dishonored, function of Congress to probe and inquire.  There is no reason in precedent or history why they can't do this with administration functions, after all a primary order of business for the executive branch is administration and how or why should this escape Congressional oversight.  Concerning the difference between U.S. companies and  the one in question; a fast answer, background checks and review of local hiring practices.  I would think it easier to do with an American company and U S citizens rather than a firm more susceptible to infiltration from undesirable sources and located  thousands of miles distant.  We seem to be doing a pretty good job with Wal Mart, from the perspective of some.  How well would we do with Wal Casbah?

even hold the Congress to.  There's a reason why the administration (all admin's for that matter) are reluctant to give Congress info.  They leak.

This deal should be rejected on national security grounds.  The almighty dollar can wait as far as I'm concerned.  It's also been over four years since 9/11 and still our southern border is wide open.  If Al Qaeda sneeks a nuke in in a shipping container or through the southern border, the responsibility will lay squarely at President Bush's feet.  BTW, say hi to yours and my good friend Howie Morgan for me.  We miss him out here in California.

Powder Blue Report

I have long contendered that we stoopid people do no't have enuf say in how things get run. But we should. All these smarty-pants people in that there Bush Administration want to put Arabs right out where other arabs can see them running the operations.

Speaking as a stupid person, I think its better if we don't know where they are. We nead to have good old American cumpnies hiring and paying all the guys named Mohammed who work in these places. That way we will feel gud an we won't know about the Mohammeds.

If I was a terrist the first place I wood go to arrange bringing in da bomb would be a arab compney running a port in the United Snakes. No one would suspect a thing.

That Chertoff probly thinks he can bug and infilterate the arab compney so when the terrists come he will find them because that is where they will go.

But we must stop him. We need to jump up and down and scream and stuff so that this plan does not go through and the Mohammeds stay hidden from Chertoff. That's the stupid thing to do.

If Chertoff is so smart why doesn't he just tell us that they have spies in the Arab compney, and that's why they want to set it up like a honey pot. Why should that be secret? The American people, and especially the Congress people, need to know what we have bugged and where we put spies. It's only right. It's time to stop these smarty pants Bush people and start doing things stupid.

what superior intellect, knowledge, experience, whatever the Congress brings to this question? The Congress is the penultimate political organization and all they can do in this matter is politicize it.

The role of the Congress is to enact laws to govern the country. The role of the Executive is to execute and enforce those laws. The Congress has provided a mechanism for the administration to examine these kinds of questions and if they are now unhappy with that they should change the law. At some point we have to accept that the people executing the laws of this country are doing so to the best of their ability and with the best interests of the country at heart.

The Congress inserting itself into this matter at this point serves no useful function other than to kill the deal. If that is your objective, kill it without regard to whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, rightly or wrongly determined, then this is the perfect solution.

One caveat however. Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences. If in fact they manage to kill the deal, they had better have an alternate plan in place. P&O will be in the position where the government has interfered in their business and their relationship with the six ports involved. What are the ports going to do if P&O decides to walk away from their contract? Who is going to get sued? Who will take their place?

I don't know what will happen but clearly something will and it is a safe bet that it is not something that the noble members of Congress planned for.

than the voters, after all, we voted for them.

The most ihmportant thing is to keep Chertoff from cimplting his churts.  Then we'll B safe, LOL OMG WTF!

Hmmm.

A port management company deals with shipping schedules, ship departures and arrivals, schedules for using docks, replenishment and a host of other things.  None of this involves security.

Frankly this whole rotten mess is complete hogwash.  That there are Republicans involved in this stupidity is the result of Delay being pushed out and his replacement being an utter waste of time.

Yeah this is important all right.  It's a national security issue as to just who has the contract to pump out the ships sewage systems.

What a waste of time.

First posty here so let me point out some things which you folks don't seem to get

 This is the most American of institution-Politics-

Look so many folks out there in blog land and in the grass roots have been saying "Secure the borders" but the politicians haven't done so. Why you ask? because doing so is a signifigant risk politically. So now they get something wrapped up in a bow that allows them to posture to "secure our borders" without doing any such a thing. of the many failings of the Bush administration their inability to deal with the political landscape is why they are ineffective. Politics doesn't stop when the election does

As I said when I first raised this issue a week ago, when Tom Coburn and Chuck Schumer agree on something, everybody ought to stop and take a good hard look.

I find this incredible.  Even if there is zero security risk involved in this misadventure, what kind of message does this send to our troops, our citizens, and our enemies?

Our troops are making the ultimate sacrifice in Irag, while our government can not make the simple sacrifice of not allowing a UAE company to operate a domestic port.  

How will our enemies view this action.  Does anyone care to guess.

At a time of war, isn't it important for the government to reassure the people that the government will do all it can to defend the Country from our enemies.  Will the knowledge that an Arab nation is running the operation of domestic port be reassuring to the population.  I think not.

This is seems pretty straight-forward to me; it should not require much thought from the administration.  I hope a decision comes soon.

with her position, perhaps sarcasm, though witty, is not the right tone to strike when responding to an initiative introduced by a US Congresswoman, assuming your goal is to be taken seriously?

Just a thought.

any IQ tests to Congress but perhaps if a little more of that attribute had been utilized by the administration they would not have created a hornet's nest for themselves.  Your point is rhetorical and I respond accordingly.   Still don't see nor have I received an answer to the Congressional right of oversight.  This may be the best run company in the world for all I know, but allowing for some posturing by M's of C I believe we should know more.  Future possiblities; lawsuits, replacement companies, and meteor's crashing to earth, for the moment I leave to speculation and the ouija board.  A word about Chertoff and lawyers in general.  In a past life,willfully pushed back to the recesses of memory, I had sufficent professional experience with them to realize that a gap existed between the talk and for lack of a better word, general competence.  Some, not all.  Chertoff as consul for the Senate Banking  Committee was impressive, but, well let's just say Katrina and throw in the name Brown.  I mention this in reference to your opening sentence re intelligence, ability, etc.  Let's see what develops.

And, in the case of the ports, we don't have to give an Arab company the contract. While I support free trade with the UAE, and the risks are probably not all that great, this is a bad move.

I think it's a security risk that, however small, should not be taken. I think it's politically foolish. I think it looks idiotic to be worried over security and fighting over terrorism--the majority of which is funded and carried out by arabs, sorry to say--and then turn over any function of port management to the UAE.

It may look good on paper. The UAE may be very westernized. But, you know, most of the time the terrorists don't hide their bombs in big red boxes that say "Bomb" on the front. The 9/11 terrorists did many things to avoid standing out and to appear thoroughly westernized before the attacks. And, when they did attack, they used our own systems against us and turned our commercial airliners into deadly weapons.

As nutty as they may seem, we don't have as much to worry about from folks with bushy black beards setting fire to flags in the streets while screaming "Death to America" as we do from the folks who desire that goal just as earnestly, but are clean shaven, put on a suit and tie, and conduct themselves as pure businessmen.

Sorry, come on. I know where not selling our ports. I know there are a lot of people involved in port management. But come on. The ports? To a middle eastern company? This is just a bad idea all the way around, and I expect it's not going to happen, and will just stand out as an unnecessary political failure for the Bush admin. One that could have easily been avoided.

Or lack thereof is not a good argument here, as this was a clearly ill-considered decision, at least politically. Given the insane amount of cash thrown at Katrina to be flushed down the toilet, I think it would have been worth it to the Bush admin to spend a little extra money and find a company not located in the middle east to handle port management.

Did they not know how it would sound, even to many of their supporters? Did they not know how it would play in the media? Did they not know that many of the folks in congress would be hearing from their constituents, loud and clear, that they don't like this idea? If superior intellect is involved here, then we must be talking about the blind leading the dumb. Because if this was a carefully crafted where everything was scrutinized and considered, the admin seems to be surprised by the political fall out--and I just don't see how that can be. Any thoughtful politician would have to know how this would play in both the red states and the blue.

While I am highly conscious of the law of unintended consequences, this is also a bad argument in this case. What might be the unintended consequences of putting a UAE company in charge of our ports? Those potentially negative consequences seem a lot more material to me, at this moment, than putting a stop to this bone-headed idea.

Finally, bad ideas are bad ideas. While this may only be a bad idea in the political sense, it might be a real security risk. I don't know. But I do know that the procedural argument is also a bad argument. While I understand why there is a division of power, and why the procedures should be observed, if something is a truly bad idea, letting it slide because it's procedurally impure to have congress try and put a stop to it is just foolish.

If your boss was driving you home from a party and was about to drive off the bridge, would you stop him, if you could? Or would you let him, so he could leave you in the car to drown and eventually report the accident many hours later? I mean, he is your boss, after all. Wouldn't that be insubordination?

With such an odd and politically foolish move, I think the people to blame for any unintended consequences can be found in the Bush administration. If they did not predict this outcome for this sort of decision, then they certainly don't have anything on the intellects in congress. Even if it is a bad move on the part of congress, and I don't think I agree that it is, the Bush admin left themselves wide open for just this sort of thing--in fact, practically invited it--and it's something that would have been easily preventable. It's a very large planet, and surely there is a management company that could do the job that isn't located in the part of the world voted "Most Likely to Detonate a Dirty Bomb In An American Theme Park".

security and now this!!!BAD IDEA.

Because Congress has the power to intervene does not mean they should. They bring nothing other than politics to this evaluation.

Listen to them, its all grandstanding, on both sides of the aisle.

this was not some RFP issued by the Bush administration. The current contract holder the British firm P&O decided to sell their business interests to the company in the UAE. Plain simple business transaction, let's not make it something it isn't. No ports for sale, no contract out for bid, nada.

surely there is a management company that could do the job that isn't located in the part of the world

Read.My.Lips. No one went out looking for the UAE company to provide port services. This was a decision between two commercial interests. If the Port of New York doesn't like the decision they should place the contract out to bid, if they were smart enough to leave themselves that option in the contract.

And I don't claim to know whether this is security risk or not. That's the job of the administration; that's what they are supposed to do. At some point we have to 'have faith' that the people charged with the assessment are doing their jobs properly. Is the Congress going to make every security related decision every day? Because if they want to do this, they are going to be very busy. The Congress is very very good at second guessing; they can stop this, but  you will never see them take responsibility for their decisions (for the perfect example of Congress' behavior see Nick's piece this morning on FEMA.)

This is all nonsense, complete and utter nonsense.

she has found a way to put her pants on other than one leg at a time, then her initiative is open to question, even sarcastic question.

But in fairness to the Congressman, it isn't only her. Large parts of both the House and Senate are no participating in this feeding frenzy of politics.

A reporter on FNC said "contract for port supervision." Yesterday it was "selling the Port of New York."

There is no supervision involved here, you got it right, it's port operation, day to day, run of the mill stuff --- like pumping the sewage.

Good observation.

no one is betraying the troops.

We recently had some complaints about the administration shooting itself in the foot. This is a prime example.

The pros and cons of the deal aside, it looks  bad, real bad, and they should have known it. You don't try to convince the American people to accept warrantless wiretaps while at the same time insisting that Arab control of our ports is no problem.

Even if it isn't, you can expect administration critics to make hay out of it. Somebody at the WH was asleep at the switch.

Why do I get the feeling that the headlines could read "Hamas Hired For Port Security" and there'd be people attempting to defend it? No matter how you look at it, this was a bad decision.

Take a break, let out a belch, take a deep breath, then come back.

It's disturbing - and disgusting, to an extent.

The only thing changing is where the profits go, not how things are being run or the security measures.

Rep. Blackburn is right to ask some serious questions, as are Senator Graham, and even Senators Schumer and Menendez.

While some people in the Bush Administration might believe that the UAE can be trusted with this, and maybe they might not be responsible for security right now, who can say what the future of the UAE might be?

The UAE is a tiny country bordering on Saudi Arabia, and all it would take is a well-organized group of radical Wahhabis to stage a coup, take over the government of the UAE, and they would OWN the contracting company. Then they could easily bribe a few longshoremen to look the other way while they sneak in some WMD on just a few containers, and the damage is done.

Allan Bartlett is right--this looks bad, like the proverbial camel's nose in the tent. We can support President Bush and his Administration on most issues, but Republican members of Congress like Rep. Blackburn (Steve Foley and Peter King are also questioning this) should be willing to blow the whistle when some small commission within the Executive branch makes a bad decision. Quite possibly, President Bush never heard about this until it came up in the press--he's got a lot of other things on his plate, and he can't be everywhere at once. He has been traveling around pushing his energy plan, but hopefully he's on the phone to Washington, and aware that some of his underlings made a bad decision, an it's up to him to reverse it, to protect America.

Whenever anyone in the Executive Branch makes a mistake, everybody blames the President. How many times has the CIA or the State Department undermined President Bush's policies? President Bush should listen to people like Rep. Blackburn and suspend or block this deal, and send everyone back to the drawing boards to find a buyer that Americans can be comfortable with.

this port issue is the gift that keeps on giving to the democrats . here in md. both ehrlich & o`malley were on tv blasting bush about the baltimore harbor.  you could almost see ehrlich cussing under his breath about bush screwing up his re-election campaign, bush is so unpopular in md. it`s going to be tough for ehrlich and this sure doesn`t help.

actually i think ehrlich has a good chance of getting re-elected if bush doesn`t damage him anymore but steele will  go down to defeat.poll all you want.   md. won`t send a republican to the senate but usually the governors race is close.

that we know to be a fact that directly marks this as a bad decision.

BTW, the alternative was a bid from a Singapore company, much larger and more experienced than DPW, but P&O accepted the bid from DPW.

Frankly I think the financing mechanism stinks but that's because I dislike hypocrisy and Islamic rules about interest and the methods used to get around them are pure hypocrisy.

...lets keep a short leash on these Johnny come lately democrats who see in this issue (in preparation for NOV.) an opportunity to stump very hard to look like their strong on National Security and Defense.

We have to drive these two points home to all of the folks we reach on a daily basis:

1. George Bush didn't sell these ports to an Arab country. As we know the Dubai Company purchased a British company who were running these ports, in a deal that's best described as a lease.
   
2. The process or evaluation in which this company's deal went through is based on a "Cold War" procedure which I think we can all agree is out dated and needs to be revamped to fit the modern day. This was more of a short Q and A than a detailed investigation, but is no ones fault as they were following rules that were in place pre 911.  

I believe the focus should be shelving this deal for now until we can rewrite the procedure in which we evaluate these types' of purchases as it relates to national security in a post 911 world. Also not letting Democrats get away with the spin of the blame bush meme or letting them use this as a way to try and show how "they can be strong on national security and defense too."

Authoritarian governments and governments with dictatorships are way too unpredictable to be allowed to run ports or own large oil companies on American soil.  

The "Arabs" will not be "in control of any of the six ports involved; not, nada, nil, zilch, nothing. The ports involved are controlled by the local port authorities, and they are not going to give up control to anyone.

I just couldn't pass up a teed-up shot at Congress.

I'm still ticked off that Pat Leahy isn't sitting in Leavenworth for his leaks from the Intel Committee, and I can't believe Harry Reid still has a security clearance after making comments on the FBI files of judicial nominees.  And that's just for starters.

The mother of all such moments will always remain what happened on October 2, 1978 "When I hit the ball," Bucky Dent recalled, "I knew that I had hit it high enough to hit the wall. But there were shadows on the net behind the wall and I didn't see the ball land there. I didn't know I had hit a homer until I saw the umpire at first signaling home run with his hand. I couldn't believe it."

Neither could the Red Sox. Don Zimmer, then Boston's skipper, changed the Yankee shortstop's name to "Bucky F___g Dent." Red Sox fans had even more salty phrases.

Dent's home run was the headline grabber in that one-game playoff game between the historic rivals at Fenway Park before 32,925. The Yankees were down to the Sox in the AL East by 14 games on July 19. After Billy Martin was fired as manager, Bob Lemon led the team to a 52-21 record. Losing 14 of 17 in September, the Sox made a late-season run winning their last eight games, catching the Yankees on the last day of the season. ...

For the rest, go here.

Politically it is great left or right

a total winner issue

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060221/ap_on_go_co/ports_security

I can't believe I'm siding with Chuck Schumer on anything.

The good news is that I'm mostly only siding with him against Jimmy Carter.

On our side is Frist, Coburn, etc

Sorry, it had been a little while since I've seen someone issue a call to support the troops.

Just doing my part.

...company deals with shipping schedules, ship departures and arrivals, schedules for using docks,...

[sarcasm mode] Absolutely nothing here that would be valuable to a terrorist organization trying to smuggle people, bombs, guns or contraband into the country. And absolutley nothing here that would be useful for planning to blow-up a ship and cause the largest adverse impact in a major metropolitan area. No risk here what-so-ever.

Move along now! Move along. Nothing to see here. [/sarcasm mode]

While I haven't yet decided where I stand on this issue (leaning against, but not committed), I am sure of one thing: I don't want too much transparency on this.

Everything that Congress hears and publicizes goes straight into the Al Queda operating files. And then they start looking for weaknesses to game the system.

So, while I think it is appropriate for Congress to slow the process down a bit for consideration or re-consideration, I really don't want Congress holding extended public hearings on methods of securing ports. I might be able to support a closed session, but somehow those seem not to stay closed, as we've learned with both the secret "prisons" and "domestic" wiretapping cases.

Congresswoman Blackburn, I might trust you to sit on the closed committee, and I'd probably trust Senator Frist or Congressman Hastert, quite frankly I'd rather there were no committee than have Congresswoman Pelosi or Senators Schumer, Reid, or Kennedy on any such committee.

P&O Ports is responsible for all port operations in North America as well as for pursuing development opportunities in the `Americas' Region - incorporating North, South and Central America as well as the Caribbean. POPNA was formed in 1999 with the acquisition by P&O of International Terminal Operating Company, Inc (ITO), a New Jersey based stevedore and terminal operator that had been established in the USA since 1921, with operations along the East and Gulf coasts.

In April 2000, P&O Ports consolidated its position in North America through the acquisition of Gulf Services Group, a leading stevedore in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and the Fairway Terminal Corporation, the largest and most experienced stevedoring contractor and terminal operator in Texas. POPNA is now the largest independent stevedore and terminal operator on the US East and Gulf coasts with operations in most ports from Portland, Maine to Brownsville, Texas.-I found this (P&O's) PR spiel on a career site- I am sure there is more complete text out there

I wish I had a better source, but it seems to me this should be the starting point for questions.

but it still looks bad.

BTW, would you support the deal if it involved Iran or Syria? How about our "allies" the Pakistanis?

The UAE is an ally. The ports are currently being run by a British company (they have no terrorists in Britian, right?) What is the upside in trying to kill this deal? There isn't any. It's all downside.

This is an issue that is being played up purely for political gain. It started on the Democrat side and now the Republicans have jumped in to get in on the action.

The end result is it will tick off the UAE and we will gain nothing with regards to port safety.

Take the wind out of the sails of the anti-American liberals who want to claim they support the troops by protesting the war.

Is killing a deal and angering an ally on the GWOT just for political gain.

I might have jumped the gun on shelving this deal or not allowing it to go through. I was focusing more on the politics than the actual issue of this company running the ports.

As I've come to understand it better I see no problem with this company signing the checks...

However I do think we still need to rework the process and evaluation procedures to reflect a post 911 world when it comes to these types of deals.

of getting that information. It may surprise you to learn that ship arrivals, departures and berthing information are not a state secret.

The only other company that bid for P&O's business was a Singapore-based company. No risk there I guess :-)

Why does it "look" bad? Because some Congresscritter or newspaper says so? This thing has gotten so crazy that now we have Carter backing the WH on the deal (the kiss of death of there ever was one) and Schumer waxing enthusiastically about having {cue ominous music here} Halliburton run the ports.

Only problem with Schumer's idea is that Halliburton didn't bid for P&O's business and apparently has no interest in running port operations. But let's not let reality get in the way of a really good opportunity for the Dems to show how strong they are on national security.

JAMES S. ROBBINS HAS THIS TO SAY FROM NRO symposium

I have to wonder if the approval of Dubai Ports World is payback for recent support by Dubai and the UAE in the war on terrorism. Some data points:

December 2004: Dubai was the first government in the region to sign on to the U.S. Container Security Initiative to screen all containers heading for the United States for security risks.

May 2005: Dubai signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy to bar passage of nuclear material from passing through its ports, and install radiation-detecting equipment.

June 2005: The UAE joined the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

October 2005: The UAE Central Bank directed banks and financial institutions in the country to tighten their internal systems and controls in their fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. UAE banks routinely cooperate with U.N. and international law-enforcement agencies in supplying information about suspect accounts.

November 2005: In the wake of the terror bombings in Jordan, General Shaykh Muhammad Bin-Zayid Al Nuhayyan, heir apparent of Abu Dhabi and supreme commander of the UAE armed forces, stated that "Muslim scholars who live among us must adopt a stand toward this terrorism... If they do not declare [terrorists] to be infidels, they should at least consider them as non-Muslims. ...If there are no honest stands toward these non-religious and inhumane operations, these [attacks] will continue."

December 2005: The UAE National Consultative Council called for declaration of an all-out war against terrorism and depriving any person who pledges allegiance to foreign extremist groups the right of UAE citizenship. The council proclaimed that it regarded links to such groups as high treason.

The UAE has also assisted the Coalition effort in Iraq, in particular training Iraqi security forces and sending material assistance to the Iraqi people.

There is a lot on the other side of the ledger too -- particularly a thank you statement from Hamas to the UAE in July 2005 for all the support -- but given the way relationships work in the Middle East I can see Dubai expecting favorable treatment in return for its recent cooperation in the effort to combat terrorism, and especially for supporting the war effort in Iraq. It is the way of things.

about all this is that it seems to have pushed the Cheney shotgun non-issue off the front page.

Agreed, we should take a good, hard look and see who's misunderstanding the problem.

I think the key is that the UAE origin of the company is a red herring, and the real issue is that we don't want to trust ANY company with our port security.

By this logic, over half of the United States (55%) doesn't support the troops. Yikes. That's ominous.

http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=21553

I wonder what percentage of that 55% are anti-American liberals?

And I guess that also begs the question: if 55% of the people believe one thing, and 42% believe another, which group is the majority and which group is the minority? That's a rather large 13% gap.

Is that I can't figure out if you're trolling or just kinda slow on the ol' reading comprehension.

I only ask because you've been on borrowed time for a while, and I'd like to end the suspense once and for all.

populace.

Dems Supported P&O Security Measure

Lawmakers Initiate Secure Tradelane on US E.Coast - 2002-09-30

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., were joined by a council of security technology representatives on Friday to start the Smart and Secure Tradelanes Initiative at points on major Atlantic trade lanes stopping at the ports of New York-New Jersey....Friday's announcement was made at the Port Newark Container Terminal in New Jersey, operated by P&O Ports. On hand were Rick Larrabee, director of Commerce for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Joseph Assante, president of the Port Newark Container Terminal, and Vikram Verma, president and chief executive officer of Savi Technology

"SST will help protect this supply chain and is a major first step in protecting our homeland from a nuclear, biological or conventional weapon from reaching our shores," Schumer said.-Shipping News

Other Security Measures

They include:

The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, or C-TPAT. The joint effort involves multiple countries and rewards shippers and carriers that certify the use of best security practices with expedited processing at U.S. ports of entry. The Customs Service, of course, will conduct periodic audits to be sure the practices are actually being carried out.

The Container Security Initiative, or CSI. Under CSI, the United States and governments of some trading partners are working toward a series of bilateral agreements to permit exchange of customs officers and more screening of shipments at outbound ports. The initiative calls for better monitoring and documentation of all workers who help load international cargo and of the process used to seal the containers.

The Smart and Secure Tradelane Initiative, or SST. Under SST, three large seaport operators, representing over 70 percent of the world's container traffic, will collaborate to develop automated tracking, detection, and security technology for containers entering U.S. ports. Eventually, containers leaving the participating ports will be equipped with special seals to detect tampering during transit.-Stanford Graduate Scholl of Business

My Vote

Wasn't intending to troll, as it were. I just saw an argument put forward by one poster (a frequent position that you can't support the troops if you don't support the mission), and chose to respond to it with, perhaps, a different take given some raw data.

If I said something that was out of line or breached the RedState rules, I apologize. Let me know what I said wrong, and I will not do it or say it again.

Perhaps I am a bit dim or slow on the old reading comprehension as I must to admit I'm confused by your post.

Did I say something that was out of line? Again, my apologies, if so.

supporting this decision - the facts are irrelevent.

The first rule of politics is that if you have to explain, then you're already losing.

First of all, it is well within the rights of the U.S. to not approve the merged entity's rights to continue to operate these ports. That is why the deal had to be reviewed. For National Security reasons, we could block this.

Second of all, we went to war in Iraq because, officially, we couldn't take a chance on what Saddam might do. No one knew what he would do in the future, but the concern was over what might happen when/if he had WMD, and when/if he chose to share that WMD with terrorists in order to hit us. It was a preventative war, everyone on both sides of this issue accepts that much. It was a war waged to prevent a possible negative outcome down the road. In other words, it was a war fought because we couldn't not be as careful as possible.

Here is how this looks to the average person. We were willing to go to war in a foreign country, kill a lot of people, spend a lot of money we need in the U.S., and do it all because after 9/11 there is no such thing as too careful.

The same justifications were put forward for why travelers now must endure intense screenings, why international calls are being monitored when suspected terrorists are involved, and also even why we are now probably going to hit Iran over potential nukes. After 9/11, there is no such thing as too careful.

But, when it comes to our actual border, we seem to be entirely lackadaisical in our approach. In terms of border security and immigration, the American people overwhelmingly want something done. But the Bush Administration has not taken bold action on the border or on immigration, and now this action pops up.

The Dubai company may be safe. But the perception on the American street is that we are taking an unacceptable risk.

You can insult average Americans all you want with sarcasm about how stupid they are to be concerned by this. You can rail against their inability to see the facts. You can do all of that, and it only proves that what Lindsey Graham said about the Bush Administration applies equally to you - you are tone-deaf politically.

For an average Joe, you can't come out with preventative wars, wiretapping, and curtailment of some civil liberties based on the justification that it is all needed to protect the country, and then turn around and turn over operational control of ports to a company which is an extension of an Arab government.

It isn't flying. Even Hannity can't swallow this. No one can, except the Bush Administration and some posters on this board.

Logic won't cut it. Arguing against the intelligence of Congress won't cut. Americans are afraid of this, and being afraid they would just as soon not take any chances. Period.

Republicans in Congress understand this and are getting out in front of this issue. Why don't so many posters on this board and the Bush Administration understand it so clearly?

Many of you who are backing this have said over and over again that 9/11 changed everything and that we have to be as careful as possible. Hence Guatanamo Bay detentions, torture of suspects when needed to extract information, preventative wars, and more, including some calling for the prosecution of opponents of the Iraq War as traitors.

Now - suddenly we're not supposed to be as careful as possible. Now, we're supposed to pretend that operational control couldn't allow Al Queda moles to infiltrate the port operations and determine ways to overcome security from the inside.

Is it possible, or is it fiction? I have no idea.

However, after three airliners were simultaneously hijacked and used as missiles, forgive the American people for their obvious concern.

First of all, it is well within the rights of the U.S. to not approve the merged entity's rights to continue to operate these ports. That is why the deal had to be reviewed. For National Security reasons, we could block this.

Maybe the feds could force the local cities to rescind their leases or confiscate their property but I am not so certain about the Federal's ability to do that. It may be a local issue. These entities do not operate the ports, but only a limited number of births within the ports.

The feds could issue broad prohibitions against trade with the UAE but that would be counter productive.

Still this whole overblown rhetoric is really nothing more than mid term electioneering by the democrats.

It appears that like many others you have fallen into a political trap set by the democrats using misinformation about what is happening.

There is no benefit to campaigning for the democrats. Every city where P&O operates births is DEEP BLUE democrat. This is a democrat created risk, that the democrat propaganda machine is trying to smoke you into thinking that it is Bush's fault.

The simple solution isn't federal. It is that the local cities recind the permits the issue to operate the births and seek new bidders for the problem. The Unions will just love that.

"If you have to explain it you're losing. You have to get out ahead of this. The facts are irrelevant. Logic won't cut it. Tone-deaf politically."

This is the exact same line of reasoning that led to the new prescription drug entitlement. It is the exact same line of reasoning that lead to McCain-Feingold becoming law. This is the same line of reasoning that always leads to increased spending. Running the country by polls is a very bad idea... at least for us. The easy answers are always the liberal ones.

Republicans in Congress who have come out against accepting the Dubai company also fallen for Democrat propaganda?

They sense what you seem to be missing, there is no upside to arguing in favor of this. None, zippo, nada. It is a losing case and will hand the Democrats an issue going into the 2006 election. That is why Republican officeholders are scrambling to get on the other side of it from the administration.

National security is not a local issue. If the administration felt that this was an unacceptable risk, then action could be taken to rebid the operation of the ports.

If this is not a federal issue, then why was approval of a federal commission necessary? If it is a purely local issue, then why involve the Federal government? Shouldn't the local Ports Authorities have been the approving agencies on the deal, and not the Commerce Department?

Clearly there is a federal dimension to this issue, and an ability for the federal government to exercise control over the proceedings.

By all means, keep arguing all of you that the Republican officeholders are stupid or spineless, or whatever.

Keep arguing that the American public doesn't know the facts. That may be true, but it is also irrelevent. This isn't about facts, it is about perception that the Administration is willing to take chances with our security.

I know that the Dems have no credibility on the security issue, but this give Schumer and Co. a chance to look like hawks on an issue that Americans care about - border security.

If you and others can't see how dangerous this is politically, then I don't know how to explain it to you any further.

...and he can't help but kick his leg.

Put the word "troops" in front of a liberal, and he has to spew a Talking Point.

Reminds me of Judge Doom in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit":

"Shave and a haircut..."

He said

Take the wind out of the sails of the anti-American liberals who want to claim they support the troops by protesting the war.

You then cited a poll about support for the war, not about protesting.

You then proceeded to jab with the Pointy Stick.

Please don't do that.

I'll preface my comments by saying I haven't done my due diligence with regards to the firm that wants to take over port operations.  That being said, I find the rhetoric over this issue puzzling.  I am troubled by the notion that because a company is "run by Arabs", that consequently, they cannot be trusted to do the job.  What does the transaction entail, exactly?  Doesn't this same firm run the ports where the original cargo is onloaded?  Have there been issues with their tenure in managing other ports?

If we are to appeal to moderates in the Arab world, and our war isn't against all Muslims, then lacking anything substantive against them, what is the justification for turning their ownership down?  

The phrase that two of the 9/11 hijackers are from the UAE is a specious one at best.  Following that logic, it was wrong to have a British firm run the ports, since the shoe bomber was from Great Britain.  Better yet, Timothy McVay was from New York, so no New York companies can't run the ports either.  Perform the due diligence, and find a real reason to deny or approve the sale.

Actually, the local Ports Authority seem to be against it. Governor Pataki of New York, and Ehrlich of Maryland (both Republicans) are trying to block the deal for the ports of New York and Baltimore, respectively. They, too would be blamed if something blew up in their cities.

One of the other ports affected by this deal is Miami...I wonder what the Governor of Florida, who happens to be the President's brother, thinks of this?

against the Medicare entitlement by appealing to classical Republican ideas such as adherence to the free market, fiscal conservatism, and limiting government. I think a majority of Republican voters and even a majority of voters in general would have accepted that case. There was no massive outcry among the public for this program.

All Republicans had to say was, "This will break the bank. We can't afford it. We can't even pay for the system we have in place now. It will cost trillions. We need a better idea."

Americans weren't in a froth wanting this, the President and the Republicans simply wanted to take a potential campaign issue away from the Dems and they did so - by actively betraying Republican principles in the process.

McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. It is a violation of the First Amendment. No explanation is needed. Americans understand what unconstitutional means. Again, I don't recall gobs of Americans standing up demanding this bill. It was a creation of Washington and is largely ignored by the mass of people. And again, it was the Republican establishment seeking to quiet a potential campaign issue that led to an abandonment of Republican principles.

But what is your reasoning on this? You have to stand before the American people and say, "We don't think that allowing a firm owned by the government of the UAE to manage operations at some of our most strategic ports is likely to result in a nuclear, chemical, or bio weapon being imported into the United States. We don't think it will increase the likelihood the thousands of Americans dying. We feel that this is an acceptable risk."

This is horrible politically. It is a denial, again, of Republican ideals. The party has been saying, as I said, that we can't take chances. We have to do the utmost. The administration is now trapped by its own rhetoric. "When we said we can't take chances, we weren't serious."

If you are going to buck such a wave of public opinion, then you better have something better in your corner than 'trust us, this will be okay.'

if the discussion is focused on blocking the sale of P&O terminals to Dubai World.

Damned if you do damned if you don't. It is all about the mid term elections.

If President Bush takes any action to interfere, (with the merger) he plays right into the Democrat's election strategy that President Bush is an out of control cowboy bullying our allies and needs to be reigned in for our own protection (read vote democrats for congress).

If President Bush doesn't take action (against the merger) he plays right into the Democrat's election strategy that administration is weak on homeland security and controlled by his pals in big oil. (Read vote democrats for congress)

(copied from the my diary entry earlier today: Dubai Port issue a bogus Dem Political trap)

We need to focus the discusion on the need to insure port security. Not whether the feds should favor one foreign company over another foriegn company to run some of the docks at our ports.

The cities control the leases on the births, it is up to them to work with the feds to fund better security. The lease and access fee is the critical issue. Not whether Bush can interfere with a legal international stock transaction.

Perhaps you are correct that there is no benefit to ignoring this problem, but it isn't one this congress created. Picking up the ball on this and then not running with it would be worse.  This is just one of many companies that operate cranes that unload ships that come to our country. The focus should be on checking every container, regardless of who signs the stevedores paycheck.

And again, it was the Republican establishment seeking to quiet a potential campaign issue that led to an abandonment of Republican principles.

This is right on and the same thing going on with the UAE dock bruhaha.

The prescription drug benefit was one of the top few issues of the 2000 campaign. No idea why... it just was. You even had 25 and 30 year olds on those idiotic "town hall" forums asking about Medicare prescription drug benefits.

CFR never polled very high on the "most important issue" polls but did have popular support (if you asked for/against CFR). That is the reason Bush signed the bill. He was against it, then caved on it because he thought he was on the wrong side of the issue.

In both cases we could've done the right thing, but in both cases we did the easy thing instead. Killing this deal is the easy thing to do, not the right thing to do.

The response is simple. There is no difference between having a UAE company running operations at these ports and having a British company doing the same. I don't see any additional risk here.

I wonder how long it will turn for the debate to turn to nationalizing the ports? We could turn every dockworker into a federal employee, like we did with airline screeners. It worked so well there. (Another place where we caved to political expediency over good sense).

Then we could roll them into DHS. (Yet another place where we caved to political expediency over good sense... doesn't seem to be any shortage of examples of this behavior).

My prediction here is that the administration caves and the deal is killed. Doesn't make it right, though.

... is that this would be easy to spin as it has been spun.

The administration should have been ready with a simple and straightforward response:

This contract has nothing to do with security: the Coast Guard, Customs, and the local Port Authorities and local law enforcement share overlapping responsibilities for security.  P&O, and now D.P., have none.

I'm not offended by Homeland Security's signing off on this.  I am surprised that no one had the common sense to realize this was vulnerable to partisan haymaking and prepared a response -- particularly over the weeklong buildup in the Press.

You have to stand before the American people and say, "We don't think that allowing a firm owned by the government of the UAE to manage operations at some of our most strategic ports is likely to result in a nuclear, chemical, or bio weapon being imported into the United States..."

September 11, 2001. Air craft from the Saudi Arabian National Airlines did not fly into the world trade centers today.

The case to be made is to stand before the american people and say that we are insuring that every container from every country is carefully screened.

We are not specifically concerned that Dubai World will operate SOME of the cranes on SOME of the docks in SOME of the ports that unloads SOME of the containers that come into this country. This is a legal internation transaction over which we have no influence.

Rather we the government are concerned to insure that ALL of the containers from EVERY ship is SAFE, regardless of who nationality of the country that unloads them.

It could easily be an American shipping container, from an American ship, unloaded by an American stevedore company that contains a bomb.

i do preface these statements that it at the least, looks bad for the admin. and will never go over well for americans no matter how well everyone understands it. a poor move by the admin.

here's how this works, and i admit; i do not have 100% understanding myself; but i'm up on most everybody i talk to. think of it as southwest or continental airlines at the airports. its the best analogy. the UAE company is manning parts of the ports much like southwest can lease gates at hobby airport in Houston. the city of Houston still has the airport and the Feds still do all security and all customers and bags are treated and inspected by the feds. southwest just handles the bookings and equipment.

its the same at the ports. the US port authority cities still control the port and the coast guard still handles inspections and security checks for cargo, the UAE company is the intermediary.

yep, GW and the gop congress is trying to give the dems some seats. theyre doing thier darndest. i hope cheney tells 'em he's taking them all hunting if they dont get in line.

is that the British government is a democracy. The British government is our closest ally, and has been for over 60 years. Britain jointly developed the A-bomb with us. Britain freely shares intelligence with us. Britain sent troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'd say they're pretty different from the UAE. If they sent any troops, they went to fight for the other side.

Yes... Bush said today, too, that "people who are against it must first step up and admit they they are against it because the UAE is a Middle Eastern country."

Okay .. I admit that the primary reason that I'm against it is because UAE is a Middle Eastern country.

Do I need to sign that in blood cuz I've got a knife if I do.

and a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon ends up coming through one of those ports - then you can kiss the Republican Party good bye.

Forever.

If this deal stands, and the terrorists manage to get a bomb through, then it will be hung around Republican necks. It will be a killing blow.

Even if the Dubai Company were not involved, the mere fact that an Arab company was running the port facilities through which Arab terrorists smuggled a bomb will be enough to guarantee a Democratic lock on the presidency and possibly even Congress for a long, long time.

This is the risk you are advocating that we take.

The American people absolutely do not see an Arab company the same as a British company. Whether you like it or not, 'Arabs' scare the daylights out of Americans. Having Arab execs with all access badges to go anywhere they want to inside our ports is going to worry most Americans.

Yes, it is true that a Saudi Airliner was not hijacked and used on 9/11. But what does that prove? It could simply prove that the terrorists didn't want to cause Muslim casualties, so they hijacked airliners that would be populated primarily by non-Muslim passengers and flown by non-Muslim pilots. Plus, let's be clear, there are a lot fewer Saudi Airline flights to choose from than American or Delta.

Again, the question is - does this deal enhance our security? The basic argument seems to be that it doesn't lessen it. But then again, a plausible case can be put forward that it might. Is this deal in keeping with the president's pledge to do everything possible to prevent another 9/11?

If there were some huge principle at stake here, then I would stand with you guys. But there isn't. Americans are afraid that an Arab company will be a Trojan horse. Why fight that? Why not just get another company? Why stand on a shakey principle when the stakes are so high?

Why not play this safe? Because we would upset the UAE? Because it wouldn't be politically correct? Because the Muslim community worldwide would think we are racists?

Those reasons are not high on American priority lists.

As to container security overall, that is an issue that Kerry mentioned in the campaign, but did not fully exploit. Currently, all kinds of things are smuggled into the country via containers, including Chinese women as sex slaves. We do have a big issue, at the present, with container security.

I'd love to get busy correcting that security hole, but I haven't seen any administration proposals to tighten container security. The image in the public's mind is that Bush isn't serious about those border issues, and this  decision just plays into it.

If a border and security hawk suddenly shows up on the Democratic side, then the Republican Party will have rough sledding ahead in '08, unless the party distances itself from the Bush Administration on these issues. That is not something I relish the thought of.

You can accuse the American people of being ignorant, illogical, and motivated by fear. Hey - welcome to electoral politics.

 

that thought a prescription drug benefit was a good idea. However, I don't know any potential Republican voter who really got passionate on that issue.

If the president had left it alone and done nothing, then I don't think the elections since 2000 would have been affected by his inaction. People would easily turn their attention to more important matters.

On the other hand, national security in a post-9/11 world is something that people are extremely passionate about. Actions that lessen our perceived security get people fired up.

The Administration has played into that skillfully in the past to rally support behind policies. This time, the administration has run afoul of that same human reaction - the craving for maximizing security.

As for the rest, see my response below.

By the way, I hate the tendency of this administration to cave with a passion. This is one of those issues, however, that I don't think is worth fighting over.

With doing everything why aren't you advocating complete nationalization of ports? Blocking the UAE deal doesn't solve anything... for example:

What if a British company ran the ports in question and a NBC weapon came through (never mind that their job is not inspection or law enforcement)? Don't you think there would be blowback there? What if they sell to a Russian company instead? Chinese? Indonesian? Venezuelan? What countries are acceptable?

We are not turning over port security to these people, just management...it wasn't even run by American's before this.

A lot of people who don't know how the port system works have come out hard against this; I stand with President Bush.

I get your point, and I'm not saying that you are entirely wrong, however, given that this company also controls the ports that are the origination points for cargo coming into US ports, what has been the historical fallout?

Mainly, in looking at this company's history of doing business, do we have some sort of gigantic security breach that someone can point to?  Have al Qaeda operatives been acting as stevedores on the docks of Hong Kong?  If there have been no security lapses at the ports of origination, than is this some elaborate ruse to mollify the US security apparatus, so that, ingeniously, this company can take over the ports so that they can then launch their nefarious plot?

If we just make a blanket statement that they are Arab, therefore we can't do business underlies a simplistic overview of the situation.  If that were the case, why do we buy oil from Arabs?  We have a lot of oil over here.  If we don't let this deal proceed, WHO will do it?  Are you saying that some new government agency for port operations is necessary?  What are the American alternatives to this firm?  

It's real easy to denigrate "Arabs" surrounding this deal.  If not Dubai World Ports, who else?  How much?  Will we be safer?

This port decision will probably go down in history as one of the most bizarre in political history!  Have both President Bush and Carl Rove lost their minds.  What in the world is going on?  Surely Rove would recognize that the pledge of a veto over this issue by President Bush is just insane.  If we are lucky, the Democrats will only gain single house control instead of overwhelming gains in both houses due to unbelievable stupidity.  

This has nothing to do with the real effect of UAE control - but the public perception will be outrage (and rightly so).  Either open this up to full scrutiny or drop it immediately.  The damage may already be too great to control at this point.  

I could not have worded it better.

He's got 2,3,8 and 9 cards on this whole UAE port thing so far, none the same suit; and he's not folding !

Ho-ly Cow !

Well, the Arabs are coming.  Some of them anyways.

A Western Company.  Not an Arab one.

We apply different standards to different countries all the time.  For example, granting entry permits to Brits compared to Saudi nationals.

The notion that an Arab company could be placed in this position, when we are at the moment engaged in a war against fundamentalist Islam is, frankly, absurd and obscene.

Again, the question is - does this deal enhance our security

NO, the question is why are we wasting time discussing something we have no jurisdiction to prevent. They are two foreign companies that do not need President Bushes permission do anything they please.

And please stop repeating the propaganda.

...the mere fact that an Arab company was running the port facilities...

They aren't running the port facilities. They own in part or in whole some 2-3 dozen births spread out over the country. These are freight transfer stations. Nothing more. They aren't responsible for security. They load and unload ships. Cargo, food, fuel and supplies. Nothing more.

Yes, it is true that a Saudi Airliner was not hijacked and used on 9/11. But what does that prove?

It proves that all this concern over an Arab company is a red herring. America is complacent about security as long as the company operating the transportation system is American. But that is why it was so easy for the terrorists to do what they did. The terrorists will use the easiest method to achieve their means. Probably not Thunder FZE Terminals. More likely they will target some struggling American marine service desperate for business while people are squawking away about Arab businessmen. Why waste time talking about P&O terminal feeding this mid-term election political grinder? Why not steal this opportunity from the spin mavens who started it to extract real reform.

There are republicans that have picked up the ball on this, they dare not put it down with out action. A useless congressional advisory against a meaningless business merger is not what we need.

FoxNews did an online poll of whether the UAE should control U.S. ports.

Yes  175 votes (10%)

No  1568 votes (90%)  

Considering that people who read the FoxNews website are more conservative than the general public, this looks very bad for Bush.

The Constitution does allow Congress to over-ride a veto with a 2/3 vote. Sounds like our only chance right now.

By Western do you mean US, Europe and Canada only?

I would not confuse the issue of radical Islamists with Arabs. There are Arabs that are not Muslim at all, or are not devout. There are lots of radical Islamists that are not Arabs.

This is another media creation. The Company is not a terrorist entity any more than an Irish company could be construed to be pro-IRA.

Let the Dems show themselves for what they are - opportunistic, unprincipled advocates for racial profiling. We should advocate free and fair trade, and a thorough review of any sale to ANY overseas based entity.

Geez peeps, we're starting to live up to their stereotype of us.

that's why it's now a lose-lose situation, which is why it should not have gotten to this point. But it's pretty clear that the political damage will be greater if the deal is done, especially if President Bush vetoes congressional legistlation halting it.

Something must be done about this because the political fallout is enormous. Just when we have the Dems and the Media down for the count! The MSM has been exposed for the kids they are, the Dems are thinking about maybe, possibly considering a  plan for Iraq to unite the party, which already many of them don't support, and along comes this.  Karl Rove, WHERE ARE YOU? Please call your office ASAP, and no, getting Jimmy Carter to agree did not help. Gotta recharge the mind ray, it's malfunctioning.

I think it's going to take a bailout by conservative senators like during the Harriet Miers debacle. Something like Brownback asking to see private papers, which gave the WH a convenient excuse to withdraw the nomination. Don't know what it'll be though. Again I'm not debating the merits of the deal, just the political aspect.

I couldn't have said it better -- you even pulled me out of perpetual lurkerdom to applaud.  

Simple fact:  this isn't about security, but about the public perception of security.  I'm not an ad producer, but even I could produce Lee Atwater quality commercials in November for any Democrat opposing a supporter of this port deal...  Just show a picture of the WTC looking across from the NJ docks, then fade to present to show its absence.  Superimpose mug shots of the two 9/11 terrorists, subtitled to show their UAE citizenship, and solemnly intone about how Rep. X voted to give control of US ports to a United Arab Emirates-based company.  That's going to leave a mark...

Yep, this is a Dukakis-in-the-tank moment.

This is a no-brainer. I can't believe some of the smartest people on this site are arguing that this is just Jim Dandy fine with them. I mean, come ON.

Bad idea. Bad idea in general and a VERY bad idea politically. If nothing else, it only gives the Dems ammunition.

Karl Rove must be on vacation.

I don't think this has much of an effect on port security. Feds (coast guard and customs), state, and local officials still retain security. I have some limited experience having been a commanding officer of a coast guard ship based out of southern florida. We inspected the offloading of roughly 20 cargo ships during my time on board in the ports of Miami, Tampa, and New Orleans and never once asked permission of the cargo managing companies. In fact the only coordination we had with them was telling them which cargo to unload first based on what we wanted to inspect. The captain of the port (usually an O-6 in the Coast Guard for large ports) is the one that is responsible for security, not the management companies.

There are much greater threats than this current debate concerning smuggling in WMD thru our ports: allowing any foreign containers into the US originating in the Middle East or Middle Eastern ship crews or for that matter any containers from any foreign country that may have people in it that hate us (China, Russia, etc.). Should we stop all of this in the name of national security?

I think if we want to get serious about port security, we need to provide a larger budget and more personnel to customs and the coast guard.

We are part way through an important mid-year election year.  Every judgment by the administration will be under the microscope.  Why?  The donkeys finally have an issue that is starting to resonate - competency.  

'05 was a terrible year.  An underlying issue hanging in the shadows for all the no win debacles whether the torture policy, Miers nomination, the folly of the Plume affair is competency, unfortunately accompanied with ham handed tone deaf communications strategy.  

Now we are taking a stand by threatening a veto on this port deal?  The WH needs to get ahead of the story for once talking about the merits of the deal.  If the deal can't stand on its merits, now is not the year to threaten his first veto, especially after signing the spending bills for bridges in the frozen north.  

gets those dollars out and buy the company.

Quite whinning like little dems.

Unbelievable!

So, let's just be clear. After 9/11, Bush said "No one could have known they were going to fly planes into buildings." After Katina, Bush said "No one knew the levees were going to break." Now, this.

So that Bush can't say "No one knew..." here goes: MR. PRESIDENT, I KNOW THAT THESE ARABS ARE GOING TO ATTACK OUR PORTS. Now, everyone on this blog knows, so no one here can ever say "no one knew..."

Let's see how long it takes. It's just a matter of time.

I've followed this all day.  You've expressed all my concerns.  The Dems and the MSM kiddies down for the count on Cheney ... then this!?!  

The political tone-deafness is appalling!  I get the the business side "UAE-an-ally-in-the-GWOT-gets-reward-as example-to-ME-countries."  I get the Coast Guard still inspecting, etc.  I listened to it all.

Arguments made in other places on RS, reasonable.  I am a solid Bush supporter on GWOT and his wiretapping decisions.  100%  But why this fiasco?

My question:  If all security is really tight and in place, why didn't Bush SELL it to the American people FIRST?  This is wartime. Our hearts are with our fighting soldiers. Our hearts want to be with Bush.

This is high anxiety for the American people after 9/11 and the Bush doesn't read their safety concerns or address their comfort level with a deal like this?  People are watching Islam extremists burn embassies over cartoons! Do Bush's people ever watch TV and think like the average American after 9/11?  

PLEASE.  It's mystifying. If the Republicans are supposed to be such smart businessmen, where is the PR/sales department?  The customer (voter) is always right.  You must appeal to that guy. Right now people don't trust the Dems to defend this country.  I certainly don't trust them.  But giving this issue to them on a silver platter!  Beyond belief.

Does Bush know there is an election in Nov? In this atmosphere, the first Dem that says, "I'll fight to protect the ports and borders" gets the hearts and minds of OUR people.

If he hands these delicious morsels to the Dems, he just may find people in the "throw the bums out" mood (yooo hoo! that's the Dems calling). and Bush may find impeachment the first item on the Dem agenda. (Richard Dreyfus implored the National Press Club to lead that call.  I'm sure they will gladly help.)

My husband in his business always  says, "Everyone is a salesman" and "You may have the product everyone wants, but without SALESMEN, forget it."  Would Rove please phone home?

   

So should President Bush take a poll before every decision then, so that we get the clear, decisive leadership that was a hallmark of the Clinton White House?

I like Bush's decisiveness. It seems he truly believes in this.  Why didn't he sell it sooner?  This is just being tone-deaf.  I just wish he could have been way ahead of this.

Don't forget that this is a private transaction over port operations.  He's supposed to sell inaction now?

That doesn't make sense.

President Kerry were saying that UAE was a sound choice?

Gadfly,

"Everything that Congress hears and publicizes goes straight into the Al Queda operating files. And then they start looking for weaknesses to game the system."

GIVE US A BREAK. Do you really think the AlQaueda types are so dumb they don't already know how our port security operates and what level we've taken our security efforts to?

Fact:  Our ports are no safer today than they were on 9/10.  Less than 3% of our sea-borne imported cargo containers get inspected (and that's an optimistic estimate).

All it takes is one guy in the UAE company to flag a container loaded in Hong Kong, and one guy to receive that flagged container in the Port of Tampa, and one guy to certify it okay to load onto a semi and transport to anywhere in the nation it needs to go.  That's 3 guys...easy enough to recruit, for AlQaeda.

Allah aqhbar!

but it requires gov't approval, and we did not have give it. So he's selling action, not inaction.

Lamplighter,

"I am troubled by the notion that because a company is "run by Arabs", that consequently, they cannot be trusted to do the job."

Okay, try thinking of it this way:

If it made good economic sense, would you approve of outsourcing the job of the White House Marine guards to be taken over by a company using Saudi-supplied guards?

If the President wouldn't approve that deal, why should us Americans approve this UAE deal?

I will freely admit that the UAE port deal caught me off guard and that I am concerned about the possible security implications of the sale. That being said, the more I learn about the sale of the port opperations the less concerned I am about the deal. The UAE company is buying a bureaucracy, not a port, and not the security opperations.

The most intersting twist that this story offers is that it illustrates the hypocrisy of the left. First up in arms about the use of "racial profiling" and the negative implications of steroetyping, the left has without even realizing it, stepped full force into this "deplorable" conduct which it finds reprehensible (at least rhetorically speaking). The UAE has been a powerfull ally in the War on Terrorism, placing itself directly in harm's way to provide useful intel to the US. Furthermore, as noted above they have taken one of the stragest stands against extremism in the Middle East, not just in words but in actions.

If I remember correctly, the fall of Communist Russia was linked to the expression of capitalism in the USSR. How is this different? If we want to be succesfull in combatting extremism, what better carrot to offer to ally countries then access to our economy. Let's look at the history of the US for another example, thinking about the end of slavery, how many extremist groups flourished under the dismal economic situation in the South. The deplorable condition that many found themselves in made the South fertile soil for the KKK and other groups of that strain. Fast forward to a South with better economic conditions and you see the attraction to extremism being dampened.

Is there a risk in selling the operations of these ports to the UAE? I would agree that there is. However, unless strong evidence to the contrary can be pressented, I see the more important question as, what is the risk (at this point) of not letting the deal go through?

Lamplighter,

"It's real easy to denigrate "Arabs" surrounding this deal.  If not Dubai World Ports, who else?  How much?  Will we be safer? "

Right.  So we should let the Taliban manufacture our troops' body armor, and Libya provide ammo for our M-16s, and we'll buy our mil-sat components from a Sudanese firm, and the PRC can supply our needs for replacement Humvees.

Hey, it's just a business decison, isn't it?  Let's trust our administration.  They've never led us astray before, right?

...unless strong evidence to the contrary can be pressented...

• 2 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were based in the UAE, and used it as an operational and financial base
  

• The UAE recognizes the Taliban as the official government of Aphganistan
  
• The UAE has called for the destruction of Isreal
  
• non-Muslim religious expression is limited
  
• Maryland's Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich, during a tour of Baltimore's port Tuesday, called the deal an overly secretive process at the federal level.
  
• "It is no secret that federal authorities have failed to mandate, let alone implement, basic port security measures"
  

So what is at risk?  Our security, that's what.

The problem here is that we should not allow any foreign -- and arguably hostile -- government to run our critical infrastructure.  Otherwise, what's the point?

If you could show us an actual word.

Until the Democrats fabricated this issue with the assistance of the MSM and now the assistance of the GOP "me too!" crowd. This happened fairly quickly, over the past week I'd say.

Even now he can't really sell it because it is hard to sell a negative. This isn't his proposal. His desire was to stay out of it. Why we should stay out of something is a very hard thing to sell (since, by definition, if you are selling it you aren't staying out of it).

You don't think we've done anything? You don't think we carefully watch the manifests for anything strange? Just because we don't open up a container and pull everything out doesn't mean precautions aren't being taken. We also have NBC detection equipment now... something we didn't have on 9/10.

The 3% is not random. It is the 3% most suspicious containers that we are inspecting. If we tried to inspect every container, the ports (and the economy) would shut down. We have to be smart about it and inspect the suspicious containers.

This is just a Democrat talking point... and not a very good one.

Dockworkers are not law enforcement. They are not a military force. They offload containers onto trucks and rail. There is a big difference.

It disgusts me to see the leader of our country value money over American lives.  Bush has talked and talked about the war on terror.  That we would go into any country harboring terrorists.  Well, what about countries that produce terrorists.  What about countries that supply nuclear components to Iran and North Korea.  Do we just let them slid by.  Just because President Bush says it is ok.  If the port deal is legitimate, why make it so secret.  There is a federal law that requires a 45-day investigation where a foreign acquisition "could affect the national security of the United States."  Has this 45-day investigation taken place?  If so, why has not there been any information on this.  Futher more, I thought this country was by the people for the people.  NOT TO PUT MONEY IN THE POCKETS OF TERRORISTS.  Another question comes to mind, why is this port deal so important to Bush, that he would veto and do anything in his power to see that the port deal goes through?  These are some of the questions that are quite troubling to me.

letting them be the cooks?

It would be stupid for us to let any foreign country run the operations of any of our ports.  Yes, free and fair trade is good, but it does not give the excuse to just let any country lease our ports, especially those with terroist ties and illegal shipping procedures. It is not racial profiling, it is questioning the safety and stability of our country.  To agree to this port deal is pure stupidity.  We must question every decision our leaders make.  To follow blindly would lead our death.

You know, if he was really interested in helping his fat cat friends rake in the jack on this port deal, why wouldn't he oppose this? You know who does this kind of thing in the US? A Halliburton subsidiary. Think about the sweet deal they could get if he canned the UAE deal and demanded an American company get the sale.

you're more persuasive already!

The UAE has not in recent history promoted the distruction of Israel. In fact in 2004, Isreal was seeking to establish diplomatic ties to the Emerates.

The UAE, because of its ties to the US has recieved numerous threats from al Qaeda. On 12/24/04 the UAE announced the estradition of Abd al Rahim al Nashiri to the US. According to the Jamestown Foundation, al Nashiri was the top aQ opperative in the Gulf.

Security, is not at issue with the deal on the table. It is port operations. Furthermore, when the Container Security Initiative was launched the UEA was one of the first contries to sign up. This company already manages ports where frieght destined for the US is embarked, including Australia, Hong Kong, Germany, Inda and China.

The UAE is a free market economy. They have used their oil revenues to build the infrastructure of the entire country and their literacy rate is almost 80%. They have made responsible choices in the distribution of the procedes from their natural resources. The problem at this point is:

1. The left would argue that the President was wrong to announce that the sky was blue.
   
2. Many on the right actually believe this company will be running the security operations of the port.
   
3. A little information is a dangerous thing.

The issue does need some public airing and private Q&A sessions for interested Congressional parties. Given the information that I have been able to find, I feel more comfortable with this deal than I did when I first heard about it.

Zuiko,

sorry to but in but I wanted to mention something and ask you what you thought about it. In the past I pretty much agree with what you have to say. I also think you have a very good point about not nationalizing our ports, its the last thing I want.

And I guess that is where I have the one issue with UAE company running the show, nationalization. Unlike a British company (and correct me if I am wrong), this UAE company is a goverment owned entity. So, it is not really an independent capitalist venture. It is effectually a foreign (non-democratic) government directly involved with our ports. Even though the Coast Guard would still be handling security, I am a wee bit leery of a foreign govermnet privy to that info.

I guess I just dont like State sponsored companies on any level. Your thoughts?

Putting the UAE in the same ilk as the Taliban or Libya is precisely what I'm talking about.  You have taken a whole ethnicity and condemned it based on the actions of its radicals.  You would be justifying outsiders identifying the entire American culture by the actions of its radicals, be they the KKK or the ELF.  I don't trust government per se, but I do expect something empirical in the analysis of the deal.  Dubai Ports manages dozens of ports around the world.  There is a history to examine there, like you would with ANY other acquisition, check that history out.  

To go out say them there ARABS are taking over our ports is salacious and implies out and out bigotry.  Give me something concrete to make an assessment.  No one said a word when this company bought CSX's sea terminal arm, and CSX is an American company.  Now that they are purchasing P&O, you have a problem.  30% of our ports are managed by foriegn firms, including those out of China and Singapore.  Are you telling me that no radical muslims reside in those countries.  

Try to back up your position with facts, that's the basis of good debate, not histrionics about the "Taliban" or "Libya".  By the way, we purchase a lot of our 9MM and 5.56 ammo from Israel, should we hold them responsible for the actions of their radicals, like the one who shot Rabin?

Again, those wascally AY-WAABS are the bane of our existence.  How many ports does DWP manage?  From what I understand, quite a few, including ports in Australia.  What has been the consequence of having those evil emirs of Dubai run those ports.  Have swarms of Al-Qaeda infiltrated the Outback because of the deal there?  Let's look at the history, the preceding question could be answered in the affirmative, but we just don't know.  What I do know, is that 30% of our ports are managed by foriegn firms, including China and Singapore.  In China, no private firm exists without a stake being held by the People's Liberation Army.  So, in effect, we have some of our ports being run by the Chicom Army.  No problem there, eh.  But those ARABS, mustn't allow those ARABS to be in business.  

Okay, so your contention is that DPW is a state-run agency.  What about Chinese corporations?  There are those that currently run US ports, so should their contracts be terminated?  Don't know why?  Well, no private firm may exist in China without some stake, and mostly a controlling interest being held by the PLA....That's the People's Liberation Army.  So, you have a problem with DPW being a state run company out of the UAE, but no problem with the Chicom Army running a port.

See the issue here?

FYI, the idiot shoe bomber was a British citizen...does that disqualify British concerns?

First timer so please excuse my format.  I have some small experience with security and transportation matters.  The fact that the UAE will own the company will not chance the basic situation.  The majority of on-the-site management and employees will be Americans.  The factors that prevent terrorist's from using our ports to harm us are many and obvious to a person who has experience in the area.  All others are merely demonstrating their intellectual descent from Chicken Little.  Being hit on the head by an acorn is not proof that the sky is falling and the fact that a company is owned by the UAE is not proof that terrorist's would have it any easier in launching an attack.  Michael M. Keohane aka longwalker21@aol.com

Can you PLEASE refer to the post I made where i said that I have "no problem with the Chicom Army running a port."

Do not try to explain to me what I think without knowing that first. So no, I dont see the issue here.

and you really shouldnt be trying to give someone a lesson on the history of communism if you dont know who you are actually talking to.

"Even now he can't really sell it because it is hard to sell a negative."

I think the uproar (agree on the hypocrisy of the Dems) has provided Bush with a real opportunity now.  He and WH "salesmen" will have the nation's focused attention to educate and present this to the people.  (They are all over TV this morning answering the questions of critics.)

Bush can enumerate all the ways UAE has been a strong ally in the GWOT. He has to educate and make a serious argument why we need to recognize legitimate businesses from Arab countries that want to participate and be respected in the modern world.  Those countries who are taking a risk stepping up to help us shouldn't be slapped down.  

The WH can also educate on port management and how global trade works for our benefit. The initial story is now being filled in with a more complete picture.  What the jobs are at the ports, are there additional security protections, etc. What if our relationship changes with the UAE? Can't we write something that would terminate the lease should we have cause?

Once this hit the fan, the GOP "me, too" crowd was forced to step up -- they have to get elected and security is very much on people's minds.  I've always liked Cong. Peter King from NY.  He just said he wants more information to be sure that the vetting, by what he called middle management, was thorough enough in a post 9/11 world. They treated it routinely rather than with any GWOT priority, it seems.  Today the WH said Bush wasn't even aware until last week.  I think that needs some explanation.

I think candidates need to present a strong stand on terror, but also need to realize it needs to include stength at our borders and ports. If they aren't believed on that issue, there will be more blowups like this current one. People get fighting in Iraq rather than here.  Closing gaps and problematic weak points here seems obvious.

I'm heartened that the FBI caught the terrorists in Toledo. This also displays why we need to have every security tool in use.  The more captures made public show people those intending harm to us live in every country so we need to be vigilant everywhere all the time.

Maybe this will embolden the the WH and GOP to get on the same page with borders and security.  That would be a great thing.

I can understand (and am in agreement with) your dislike for state sponsored and controlled companies, but I don't see how it affects this deal.

Shipping information is not a state secret. This information is readily available to anybody who is interested. For example, anybody with even a single container on a vessel has to be kept apprised of its scheduling and transport details. That is why it doesn't bother me at all. If I thought they were getting some juicy secrets that could be used against us, I would have a problem with it.

Thanks for the reply. It isnt so much the shipping info that I am concerned with. I have worked with container companies and you can often get the shipping schedules online, and yes, if you are a customer, you have even more info. I guess my concern is that any company that is running a port, has to interact with the Coast Guard who is guarding it. This allows them a lot of tactical information like watch schedules and shift rotations and whole host of other things that most people (aside from Tom Clancy) are unaware of.

My concern with it being a state run organization is probably obvious to you. I dont know if we should be allowing any company that has an affiliation to a foreign government to have a controlling interest in a vital branch of transportation.

I understand that UAE are our allies to a degree and that this may be happening all over and maybe we just start with kicking out the Red Chinese :-). I'm not even saying that I am totally against it. It is just that I feel that something like this should be done by a private firm. I just was interested in your take on it.

You are exactly right, you have NEVER posted anything against the Chinese management of any US interest.  Yet, here you have a proven company, with a track record of success, that you do intend to rail against.  I'm confused as to what your basic objection to the DPW deal.  What in the history of the company indicates that it poses any type of a security risk?  If you can point to anything other than they are an "Arab" based company, I'm open to the argument.  In my research, I have found nothing untoward in DPW's handling of its other holdings.  These holdings include ports in Australia, the Far East, and Europe.  There is a track record, please point to something other than ethnicity to oppose the deal.

It is hard to argue your point when the facts of the argument seem to exist only in your mind.

1. I am not "railing" against anything, I mere ask for zuiko's POV on something. It seems you are the only one railing against anything.
   
2. You can also show me where I stated ethnicity anywhere in my objections. You are making up things, possibly bordering on calling me a racist, with no basis in fact.

I see no real reason to continue this conversation.

I apologize for my lack of clarity and any inference that you are a racist.  While it was not my intention, I allowed myself to get caught up in the tornado of irrationality surrounding this issue.  I look forward to your future posts.

First of all, one of the tenants of war strategy has always been "to defeat your enemy, make him your friend." With that in mind, I think Bush approving of the port sale is a good policy decision. We've known since the beginning of the War on Terror that we need to recruit moderate Muslims to our cause. One method is to provide economic incentives to US-friendly Arab countries (like the UAE) and change the mindset that the west is not indifferent towards the east. If we close our ports and markets to friendly Arab states because they are Arab, we run the risk of infuriating business-oriented Arabs.

Secondly, countries that do business with one another normally do not shoot at one another. To defeat the terrorists, we must ensure governments are not complicit or funding the evil-doers. Money talks in this regard. If we establish economic ties with countries in question, they are more likely to lean on the evil-doers than those who have no economic incentive to do so.

On the other hand, this was a terrible political decision by President Bush. It has the same smell to it that the Meirs nomination did - arrogance. Bush believes his strong poll numbers as a terror warrior entitles him to blind trust on national security. No doubt the administration's victory on the terrorist survaillance debate galvanized this mindset. Bush knows the ports are probably the most vulnerable area of Homeland Security - Kerry raised the issue in an effort to get to the right of Bush on national security. What other reasoning could there be for this blunder other than cockiness?

The only way Bush can squeak out a victory on this is to find a face-saving method to drop his veto pledge and kill the deal. Otherwise, Republicans risk losing the national security debate to the Democrats. Americans are starting to feel what happens in Iraq will happen regardless of the Congressional make up but protecting the homeland is not seen in the same regard. If Democrats successfully position themselves on the right of Bush, and in essence the Republicans too, they will make serious gains in November.

with this is that U.S. firms cannot invest fully into the UAE.  They have 49% ownership/joint venture rules for foreign investment.   Second, I don't believe that any company which is wholly controlled by a foreign government should be allowed to invest directly in the U.S..   That includes any country.   We supposedly want to promote democracies around the world yet we allow non-democratic states to purchase U.S. assets and perpetuate their empires.  Third, where will the interface of information about operations be stored at DPW?  All of these port operations have highly complex computer systems to maximize efficiency.  Will this information be linked up and stored on servers back in Dubai?  Could someone gain better knowledge of which types of manifests are searched more often than others by our security apparatus?   DPW operates ports out of Djibouti and Jeddah (Saudi Arabia).  Djibouti is 95% Sunni Muslim.  Saudi Arabia if it held full elections would most likely elect Osama Bin Laden.  Who are the day to day people doing the grunt labor at these ports?  Would a higher up at the Djibouti port or Jeddah port possibly have computer access to information about shipments at the U.S. ports through Dubai headquarters?  

and they will eventually have to be thrown into the sea.

but I also agree with those stating that this is a political mis-step, made worse by the President's announced intention to VETO any injunctive legislation passed by the Congress.  I mean, come on...five years of rubber-stamping every half-baked spending and regulatory bill that crossed his desk, and this is the issue that President Bush decides to go to the mat over?  Excuse me, but when did the Meyers' crowd regain the reins at the White House??

and while I will confess I've never gone looking for such information, I feel pretty safe in assuming it wouldn't come in the nice neat package that it will for someone running operations at the port.

Also, a terrorist in a management position in the port would not look functionally different from a non-terorist in management of operations at the port. But when you have a terrorist searching for that information from the internet, it is at least theoretically possible to use a program like Able Danger to detect what they are doing.

Also, I will note that he was using an absolute "there is no information" argument, not a "you can get the same information elsewhere" argument. The first shows a lack of imagination. It's a trivial task to show that a terrorist organization will find information about when and where a shipment of chlorine gas, oil, or LNG is going to be of interest to their operations.

But potentially there is: Free Trade

which has been a cornerstone of the Bush presidency. The principle of free trade is that the work should go to the most efficient company that can do the work, regardless of nationality.

The counterbalancing argument is that this unnecessarily increases security risks to the American people. Hence the arguments (both here and from the Administration) that it does not significantly INCREASE the risk.

See, I told you I haven't made up my mind on this.  I see the validity of the arguments for going forward, as well as those against. I haven't decided where the balance point is yet.

Yes, it is a KnownFact(tm) that only 3% of the cargo containers are inspected. But does that make it a RealFact(tm)? If Al Queda thinks only 3% of containers are inspected, and its actually 10% or 30%, does that put the administration in a position not only to prevent the attack, but to find and capture the members of the team that staged the operation?

Assuming the KnownFact and the RealFact are the same, how are the 3% of containers selected? Is there operational information there which would be useful in avoiding detection? Is it possible that alternate techniques that don't require physical inspection are being applied before the 3% are selected? If there are, do we want Chuckie Schumer blabbing these operational details to the whole world while he mugs for the cameras?

Look, the bottom line is that 9/11 was a successful attack because Al Queda knew our operational playbook for dealing with hijackers: Give them what they want until they get on the ground then negotiate them to death. They recognized a weakness in this policy and used it to their advantage. If we reveal security methods for our ports in Congressional hearings, they have the potential to do the same thing. And quite frankly, I don't trust ALL the members of congress to keep secret things that NEED to be kept secret.

After reading some articles in yesterday's Wash Times, seeing a Fox News report, and reading a correction in today's Wash Times, I've finally decided to support Bush on this one, with the Reagan caveat: Trust but verify.

Seems the UAE has actually been doing a very good job of being an ally since 9/11. They've flushed bad guys and extradited them to the appropriate places. They are providing us with significant facilities to run military operations in the Middle East. Also, they've apparently been willing to spend significant sums to improve cargo processing, and where applicable, upgrade security equipment.

Also, Wesley Pruden's column today sort of cinched it for me, even though it argues the opposite point. The key quote was actually Lord Palmerston's answer to Queen Victoria that England had no permanent friends "only permanent interests." The same is true not only for the U.S., but also for the UAE. And it is in their "permanent interest" to establish a diversified stable economy for their country - regardless of whether it is monorachical, republican, or democratic. So it is their best interests at this time to run the port in a secure, safe, efficient manner.

I do agree with your following comment:

"The role of the Congress is to enact laws to govern the country. The role of the Executive is to execute and enforce those laws. The Congress has provided a mechanism for the administration to examine these kinds of questions and if they are now unhappy with that they should change the law. At some point we have to accept that the people executing the laws of this country are doing so to the best of their ability and with the best interests of the country at heart."

I think you will find that part of the Administrations problem lies in the fact that they did not following the laws governing the review process.

During the Senate Armed Services Committee meeting on CSPAN it was made very clear by the chairman and others that a 45 day review was required when either a foreign government was involved in the purchase or there was "any change" in the resulting security status. Stating that this could be either more OR less secure.

So it was made very clear to the deputy secretaries of the various agencies involved that they were in violation of the laws governing the sale/purchase of any company operating on US soil.

It was also made very clear that there were several warehouses beside the major Dubai port that contained nuclear centrifuges and other parts that a nuclear physicist used to ship these parts to Iran and Libya on the black market. The discovery of this was stated as the "main reason" that Libya changed their stance on nuclear developement.

As to the hiring process and that workers would be the same. One person would not be the same. IE. David Sanborn, DWP Director of International Shipping Lines Operations was coincidently appointed by President Bush as Administrator of Maritime Administration (kind of redundant) while the sale was being reviewed. And although he was deeply involved with the sale of P&O to DWP, he either did not feel there was any reason to point this out to the President or the President and every one of his Administration Secretaries who "knew nothing of the DWP review" are not being forthcoming.

I believe this completely justifies congressional oversite in addition to the neccessity of a system of checks and balances. I believe that this neccessity is blurred by politics in a current landscape of republican vs democrat, left vs right, conservative vs liberal and us vs them.

It seems to me when I talk to people I know, both Democrates and Republicans, that most are more in the middle of the road and are not represented by the extreme right or extreme left.

Unfortunitley we all have contributed to this  

problem and forget that we are all part of this same great country. I believe it was George Washington that said when leaving office that he did not believe in the two party system and felt it would divide the people. Maybe we are witnessing that fruitation.